for full judgment please click on TITLE of case....

Adultery (Section 497 IPC) is unconstitutional and adultery should not be treated as an offence, it is appropriate to declare Section 198 CrPC which deals with the procedure for filing a complaint in relation to the offence of adultery as unconstitutional.
Section 497 (adultery) is struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
Joseph Shine Vs Union of India, Supreme Court Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 of 2017 dated 27.09.2018

AADHAR judgment

• The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give ones demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.
• Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional.
• Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.
• Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).
• Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.
• Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void.
• Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional
• Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.
  JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY vs UNION OF INDIA

Order of stay will stand vacated on expiry of six months, unless extension is granted by a speaking order showing extraordinary situation where continuing stay was to be preferred to the final disposal of trial by the trial Court. This timeline is being fixed in view of the fact that such trials are expected to be concluded normally in one to two years.
ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs C.B.I.

The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that –
(a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week;
(b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years;
(c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year;
Hussain And Anr Vs Union of India

Police Officers be punished on Acquittal of Accused
State of Gujarat Vs Kishanbhai Etc

For bail : No need for 62 sureties, two enough for bail in 31 criminal cases
Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs State of U.P

Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. & Ors. SC

Where a preliminary enquiry is necessary
“120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

A rape accused could now be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim, even if medical evidence did not prove rape.
Om Prakash Vs Dil Bahar (2006)

Fathers name not a necessity for indian passport
Vibhu Kalra vs Regional Passport Office

Jury decision overturned by High Court
KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra

Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals mentioned in the Constitution.
Golaknath V State of Punjab

Rights of citizens to move the court for violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during emergencies. Triumph of individual liberty
Maneka Gandhi vs UOI

Parliament limited by itself
Minerva Mills v Union of India

Constitutional validity of individual rights upheld, Parliament had transgressed its power of constitutional amendment.
Waman Rao v Union of India

Challenged the Muslim personal law towards maintenance lawsuit sets precedent, Shah Bano won the right to get alimony from her husband.
Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum

Female workforce - Definition of sexual harrassment and guidelines to deal with it laid down.
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan

Best Bakery case Miscarriage of justice as a large number of witnesses turn hostile.
Zahira Habibulla Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat

Controversial section 66A of the Information Technology Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content posted on the internet was struck down as unconstitutional
Shreya Singhal v Union of India

Uphaar fire tragedy : Eighteen years after 59 people were killed in a fire in Delhi s Uphaar cinema, the Supreme Court held that the prime accused did not necessarily need to go back to jail as they were fairly aged. The court further held that “ends of justice would meet” if the accused paid Rs 30 crore each as fine.
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr Cbi

Any member of Parliament (MP), member of the legislative assembly (MLA) or member of a legislative council (MLC) who was convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose membership of the House with immediate effect.
Lily Thomas v Union Of India

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional. The said section earlier criminalised sexual activities “against the order of nature” which included homosexual acts. This judgment however, was overturned by the Supreme in December, 2013.
Naz Foundation

23-year-old law student, Priyadarshini Mattoo: death sentence awarded to prime accused Santosh Singh (son of former IPS officer), to life imprisoSantosh Kumar Singh vs State Th. CBI ........... the rape and murder of the 23-year-old law student, Priyadarshini Mattoo.
Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Th. Cbi

Petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of a notification which ordered dissolution of the legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar. The dissolution had been ordered on the ground that attempts were being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and lay claim to form the government in the state which if continued would lead to tampering with constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that the aforementioned notification was unconstitutional.
Rameshwar Prasad v Union Of India

Sec 376 – Sexual relation on pretext of marriage by married man is not a rape.
Gaurav Maggo vs The state of NCT delhi

Two dying declarations then first reject
Nallam Veera Stayanandam & Others v the public prosecutor, high court of Andhra Pradesh

Issued guideline to save life of victims of road accident
Savelife Foundation & Another V Union of India

Conversion to Islam and marrying again would not, by itself, dissolve the Hindu marriage. The second marriage by a convert without first marriage dissolved under the law would therefore be in violation of the act and as such void in terms of sec 494 IPC
Sarla Mugdal, President, Kalyani V. Union of India

Improper or unfair investigation, Magistrate can interfere : The Court observed that “the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order observed that court cannot interfere in the investigation. The observation of the Magistrate can be correct up to certain extent, but what does interfere mean is entirely dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Dr. Kuldeep Kaushik v. State Of U.P., Application No. 22243 of 2016